When using archaeological surface survey method, be it for purposes of archaeological landscape research or archaeological resource evaluation, understanding visibility of archaeological record on the surface and factors affecting it is of crucial importance. Surface visibility must always be considered on multiple levels and five of these can readily be defined: (1) Visibility determined by geomorphic, pedogenic and other post-depositional formation processes. (2) Visibility determined by the nature of the archaeological record. (3) Visibility determined by techniques and strategies of the survey method. (4) Visibility determined by surface and other environmental conditions during the survey. (5) Visibility determined by the human factor. Without considering these levels and using methodological procedures designed to control their effects on survey accuracy, any analysis and interpretation of survey results is at risk of being seriously erroneous and invalid. Furthermore, we should always bear in mind that surface survey is only capable of detecting disturbed and exposed archaeological record in the landscape. We are thus always dealing with incomplete distributions which primarily speak about landscape taphonomy and its effects on preservation, visibility and integrity of archaeological record in the landscape.

No abstract

The majority of archaeological contexts are located within the soil, therefore processes of soil formation and soil geomorphology play an important role in their formation history. These processes have important implications for the ways of observing and recording as well as understanding and interpreting these contexts. In order to demonstrate their implications a theoretical overview of only a few of those processes which seem most important for archaeology is given in this paper. This is accompanied by hypothetical profile depictions based on the presented theory in order to illustrate in a simplified manner some possible outcomes of the discussed processes reworking the archaeological record. The overview focusses on the difference between sediments and soil horizons and on processes of horizonation, bioturbation and additions or removals of material to or from the soil surface. It demonstrates that the principles of archaeological stratigraphy cannot be universally applied to sites altered by these processes. There the observed layers and contexts may not be the result of depositional events, be it anthropogenic or natural, to which these principles apply. Instead, they may be the result of in situ transformations of original contexts by long-term soil processes. In such cases, the principles of archaeological stratigraphy cannot be applied and the concept of stratigraphic contexts must be replaced with the concept of archaeological remains in soil context. The discussions of processes and accompanying hypothetical depictions in this paper should prove useful to archaeologists in the evaluation of such contexts and in thinking about how they may have been formed. However, the actual formation processes which resulted in the observed archaeological soil context can only be deciphered through interdisciplinary scientific research.

No abstract